Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

I really do sympathize with their goal. However genocide is never a justified means to an ends... Unless its Canadians. Oh how I hate Canadians

eh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiga

Just playing devil's advocate here, but what if by killing, say, 1% of the population, everyone else's lives could be made 200% better? What if it was an even bigger margin? If killing one (average, innocent) person would make life much better for everyone else in the world, would you do it (or condone it)? What about two people? Ten? It's kinda a tricky question and it's why I don't like taking sides on these sort of ethical issues because looking at it from both sides, there's never really an easy answer.

In fact, we do this all the time. We just don't like to think about it.

Every 3.6 seconds someone starves to death in the world, a quarter of whom are children under the age of five, while we stuff our faces to obesity and throw away vast amounts of food.

There are 31,000 deaths from firearms in the U.S.A. each year, so that life can be "better" for firearm owners.

There are 46,000 deaths from motor vehicles in the U.S.A. each year, so that we survivors can get around quicker.

If organ donation were mandatory instead of voluntary, I can't even imagine how many lives could be saved. But instead we bury all these potentially live-saving organs in the ground for the worms to eat so that the sensibilities of people aren't offended by the thought of the lifeless shell of a loved one being cut open.

Wars, well what can I say? Just a example using a recent, minor, pointless war: 100,000 civilians dead in the Iraq war, to make their lives "better".

These very few examples are things we are all aware of, but choose every day to condone, because they make our lives better, at least those of us who survive.

In fact, we do this all the time. We just don't like to think about it.

Every 3.6 seconds someone starves to death in the world, a quarter of whom are children under the age of five, while we stuff our faces to obesity and throw away vast amounts of food.

There are 31,000 deaths from firearms in the U.S.A. each year, so that life can be "better" for firearm owners.

There are 46,000 deaths from motor vehicles in the U.S.A. each year, so that we survivors can get around quicker.

If organ donation were mandatory instead of voluntary, I can't even imagine how many lives could be saved. But instead we bury all these potentially live-saving organs in the ground for the worms to eat so that the sensibilities of people aren't offended by the thought of the lifeless shell of a loved one being cut open.

Wars, well what can I say? Just a example using a recent, minor, pointless war: 100,000 civilians dead in the Iraq war, to make their lives "better".

These very few examples are things we are all aware of, but choose every day to condone, because they make our lives better, at least those of us who survive.

There is a big difference between me feeding my family and I while someone else can't fend for themselves for whatever reason and dropping 60 tomahawk missiles on one of the most densely populated cities in the world.

People dying from firearms? Do you mean accidental deaths? Murders? Suicides? I have guns and i have never killed anyone either on purpose or on accident. If someone wants to kill someone else they will find a way. Humans have been killing each other since before written history. Back then they did it with sticks and bones.

Its not fair to blame peoples' actions on a tool. Thats like saying n amount of Americans each year smash their thumbs while nailing just so the rest of the country can selfishly have their right to own a hammer.

Dr. Bob - Don't take any offense please. I just get upset when people blame guns instead of blaming people for shooting each other. So I may have come across a little harsh in my disagreement with your statement.

*is a proud gun owner*

Quote:

I'm not sure genocide is quite the right word here (they're just aiming for the parts of Tokyo that would have the most dramatic effect, not targeting a race or social class or anything) but as for mass murder as a means to an ends... all comes down, I suppose, to your own cynicism and the cynicism of the writers. Is the human race so beyond hope that it cannot be saved through peaceful means? Alan Moore seemed to think so... or perhaps not. But that would be getting into an analysis of Watchmen.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but what if by killing, say, 1% of the population, everyone else's lives could be made 200% better? What if it was an even bigger margin? If killing one (average, innocent) person would make life much better for everyone else in the world, would you do it (or condone it)? What about two people? Ten? It's kinda a tricky question and it's why I don't like taking sides on these sort of ethical issues because looking at it from both sides, there's never really an easy answer.
__________________

Raiga,

Yea, genocide really wasn't the correct term to use. But like I said I wasn't really all there when I wrote that. Like that Canadian joke. What was I thinking?

Your are right because to be able to say "These 2 lives are worth more than this 1" Means that you have the ability to judge life. Lives aren't something that can be bought and sold at the local market. Who is to say that my one life isn't worth 5 other so-so lives? Im not religious but I am spiritual. I believe that those kinds of decisions belong to a greater being(s)

I think the one thing most sensible people can agree on is that we as a society need to take stock and figure out what is really important to us.

Too bad more people didn't think like you.

Quote:

They judge so harshly the Japan they live in, they don't get how much greater is the corruption in their own hearts for wanting to destroy that many human lives for an outcome that is bound to be very short lived.

Thats powerful stuff Jan. Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. Like I was saying earlier they want to go back to post war Japan. Post war Japan was Post just getting the shit nuked outta you.

Yep, People never really learn. The problem is that sometimes our lives are so comfortable with no real danger that we've become weak. We really have become domesticated.

History repeats itself when people become docile enough to surrender their rights and responsibilities to those of a greater power rather than acting out for themselves. I guess it's far easier to say "let the government do it" and just go back to your routine everyday toil than to ask yourself if you could have done something to change things.

It's both the fault of western philosophy of the last 200 years and the luxuries of the industrial revolution. In the last 200 years people have moved from taking active part in the system and movement of government to thinking that the government can handle it themselves while the rest of the populace just get on with their lives. Part and parcel due to a lot of writings of that era especially those that came out of the French Revolution that espoused the ideals that the "higher people" in the governing body can be given our complete trust to do what is right for us, while we can just sit back and enjoy the fruits of our labor. If they fuck it up, then they're to blame. If they bring economic prosperity, it's because we got them into power.

As for luxuries... well... the result is sitting on our asses watching the world go by on TV and on the internet. People think that they've worked and toiled their share that they have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labors while the rest of the world goes by. It's a selfish mentality that feeds on people's wants rather than their needs, pandering to their ideas to put the self first rather than to think of others too. People are so used to their lifestyles that they don't spare a second thought that what they have or what they're throwing away, even if they don't need them, could have actually been a better help in some other place. But hey, if they enjoy life, everyone can screw themselves.

My point? My point is that people have been so uncaring and complacent about the problems of the world that they choose abandon the responsibility of change to someone who is willing to do it for them. It's apparently far more convenient to watch the news of a famine somwhere then to say... donate a few bucks to helping fight it.

For this show, the Selecao have become symbols of people who have been pressured and placed into the spotlights of change because the rest of the country are too busy with their lives to do something about it. As I've said before, when people abandon responsibility to those in power, you'll eventually have people like Selecao I and IX, people with a radically violent view on change that they'll end up hurting the country more in the long run. In contrast you have Akira, who believes change doesn't necessarily come with a price.

I'd actually note a few similarities between the Selecao and the days of terror after the French Revolution but that's a discussion for another day.

There are 31,000 deaths from firearms in the U.S.A. each year, so that life can be "better" for firearm owners.

There are 46,000 deaths from motor vehicles in the U.S.A. each year, so that we survivors can get around quicker.

I get your point, but...

The 30k firearms death number is an often used one from an FBI study in the mid to late 90s. What that number obscures is that something around 30% of thoose deaths are homicides (and that most of those homicides are of poor urban teens involved in drugs). Since then gun crime has dropped dramatically until 2005. Something slightly north of 10% is suicide, and while the gun suicide rate is higher in the US than other developed nations, the overall suicide rate is about the middle of the pack (lower than Japan for example).

Now lest I sound like a typical anime gun nut (^_-), we should also consider that most auto deaths result not merely from car ownership, but from either alcohol or excessive speed. Neither of these two are things that must happen when we let people own cars, in fact we assume and require that they don't happen.

In short, the 'cost to society' of letting people own guns or own cars is smaller (and probably much smaller) than those of numbers suggest.

On the other hand public support for the Orion nuclear powered rocket project evaporated because there would be some small increase in deaths from cancer from atmospheric fallout. Despite that such a rocket system could make cost effective microwave solar power stations which would provide enough clean renewable energy for the entire planet.

So, I agree with your point. Society always make tradeoffs regarding the good of the many over the good (or fatality) of the few. Those tradeoffs are not necessarily the most rational ones (in terms of numeric tradeoffs).

Morally however these is a difference between a premeditated purge of undesirables and accepting a statistical increase in accidental deaths. Even if the numbers are the same.

People dying from firearms? Do you mean accidental deaths? Murders? Suicides? I have guns and i have never killed anyone either on purpose or on accident. If someone wants to kill someone else they will find a way. Humans have been killing each other since before written history. Back then they did it with sticks and bones.

The figures I used are simply the most recent from the CDC. They record facts, not motives. The fact that we choose to have and use firearms or automobiles or sticks and bones results in those deaths, no matter the motives. They're refered to as "acceptable casualties" to achieve a better life.

Quote:

Its not fair to blame peoples' actions on a tool. Thats like saying n amount of Americans each year smash their thumbs while nailing just so the rest of the country can selfishly have their right to own a hammer.

It's exactly like that.

Quote:

Dr. Bob - Don't take any offense please. I just get upset when people blame guns instead of blaming people for shooting each other. So I may have come across a little harsh in my disagreement with your statement....Like that Canadian joke. What was I thinking?

No offense to be taken in sincere respectful discourse, my friend. Thank you for your consideration. By the way, I'm a Canadian who has been living in the belly of the beast for 10 years. I thought your joke was funny, though millions wouldn't. People are so sensitive!

Quote:

Your are right because to be able to say "These 2 lives are worth more than this 1" Means that you have the ability to judge life. Lives aren't something that can be bought and sold at the local market. Who is to say that my one life isn't worth 5 other so-so lives? Im not religious but I am spiritual. I believe that those kinds of decisions belong to a greater being(s) I think the one thing most sensible people can agree on is that we as a society need to take stock and figure out what is really important to us.

Now this really gets to the heart of the matter!

Lives ARE in fact bought and sold at the individual, local, state, national, and international level daily. Saying that those kinds of decisions belong to a greater being(s) always has been and will continue to be just an abdication of responsibility.

A small obvious example: Someone is drowning. Do you pull him out and save his life or walk on by? Who are you to contravene the decision of the greater being(s) who are drowning him? Refusing to make a decision IS making a decision.

Now you may say this is a silly example, but it's really only a matter of degree. The point is that we DO make life and death decisions daily, whether we acknowledge that fact or not, and as collectives we have more power to make bigger life and death decisions. When we abdicate this power, we leave the decision up to greater being(s). The greater being(s) are not actually who we may think, but rather other PEOPLE who have the strength of will (arrogance, maybe) to make those decisions.

It's a great responsibility, but abdicating it is irresponsible. What if the person drowning is a serial killer? What if we don't know (as is usually the case in fact) if he's a serial killer or not? (See the anime Monster.)

Both Meo and rocket DID get my point. In particular, the noble Meo (and I'm quite sincere when I say that) has actively chosen to devote her life to relieving suffering and saving lives. And believe me, it's at great personal cost. There are much easier ways to make a buck to feed your family. (Right, Meo? Hang in there, kid!)

Her post (as well as her life) demonstrates clearly her sense of personal responsibility. "Well, we can't all be doctors", you may say. But, as she points out, we all could put a few bucks in an envelope and actually save real human lives. And we CHOOSE everyday whether to do that or not.

As I said earlier, we don't like to think about it.

So, these Selecao have suddenly had great personal power dropped in their laps. The range of reactions is about typical:

Some (II apparently) totally refuse to do anything.

Some (V) do whatever they can with whatever they have to do as much obvious good as they can, even at the ultimate personal sacrifice.

Some (IV) totally indulge their own selfishness.

Some (XI) go on their own twisted personal crusades.

And some (I) see themselves as the great chosen ones who are going to save the world, no matter the cost.

j/k i was trying to mock Americans who don't like Canadians. For some reason lots of Americans hate Canadians even though they've never been to Canada let alone even met a Canadian. Ill let you in on a secret. There isn't a whole hell of alot of difference.

As many Americans hate Canadians as Canadians hate Americans, that is to say, not many. Nationalist humor at the expense of another country rarely extends beyond mockery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiga

what if by killing, say, 1% of the population, everyone else's lives could be made 200% better? What if it was an even bigger margin? If killing one (average, innocent) person would make life much better for everyone else in the world, would you do it (or condone it)? What about two people? Ten? It's kinda a tricky question and it's why I don't like taking sides on these sort of ethical issues because looking at it from both sides, there's never really an easy answer.

I know your question is just a very broad hypothetical, but how exactly is the killing of a small amount of people going to achieve anything? Is the crucial person or group of people dictatorial tyrants who're subjugating the entire world? Or is it just some messiah (since we're talking about Eden after all) whose death will push a mystic peace button? Eden seems to be toeing the line between both of them, but in the latter case, what is stopping the masses from rising up to wrest power from this person? How is one person supposed to consolidate that power to the point that X billions cannot take it from him? Philosophers have been wrestling with that question for thousands of years. (The answer, in my opinion, is just garden variety complacency and fear.) And as drobertbaker says, this is already going on anyway, except a large number of people are dying for the good of a few.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fisheric

I think the one thing most sensible people can agree on is that we as a society need to take stock and figure out what is really important to us.

And I think everyone can agree that what we need to do as a society is figure out what's important to us, but no one is ever able to come to a consensus on what that should be. Someone who identified as a Democrat might say social programs and a Republican might say lower taxes. A devout Christian might think the best course of action is to follow the Bible to the word and there are devout Muslims who would feel the same way about the Koran. To paraphrase a more succinct maxim, "Your opinions are your opinions and my opinions are my opinions and never the twain shall meet."

Quote:

MeoTwister5's whole post

I agree with you on some points, but would have to heartily disagree that the current situation is a result of Western philosophy and the Industrial Revolution. If anything, the ideas that can from Enlightenment thinkers actually encouraged people to have a greater hand in the government and policies of their nations. Hence all the revolutions of the time tending toward the democratic way of government and away from absolute rule by one or a few. And I've seen the IR catch a lot of flack, but in the days of feudalism people had no time to govern themselves because they were too busy trying to eke out a living from the soil. The IR gave more people time to consider their own rights and also managed to shift much of their former misery to other places of the world.

I agree with you on some points, but would have to heartily disagree that the current situation is a result of Western philosophy and the Industrial Revolution. If anything, the ideas that can from Enlightenment thinkers actually encouraged people to have a greater hand in the government and policies of their nations. Hence all the revolutions of the time tending toward the democratic way of government and away from absolute rule by one or a few. And I've seen the IR catch a lot of flack, but in the days of feudalism people had no time to govern themselves because they were too busy trying to eke out a living from the soil. The IR gave more people time to consider their own rights and also managed to shift much of their former misery to other places of the world.

The Enlightenment bore political fruit in the wake of Napoleon as Liberal Nationalism, which introduced the concept of nations composed of peoples. Prior to that, the world was a collection of family-owned domains. The people just came along with the property, like livestock. Democracy (as well as socialism and women's suffrage for that matter) was extolled as the end of war, as wars were just royal neighbors squabbling over property lines.

The American founders were very big on the responsibilities of citizens, not just their rights. In Australia, voting is mandatory, and fines can be assessed for not voting.

The most democratic system I've seen is in Libya (WHAT???), where everyone on the block has to go to meetings to decide on the block's opinion. The block representative takes that opinion (not what HE thinks is best, as in representative democracy) to the neighborhood level, and that process continues right to the top.

People in Libya consider the meetings a horrible chore and waste of time. I heard on Reno 911 "My ancestors fought and died for my right to abstain". People insist on the RIGHT to decide, but in fact very few of them want to go to the EFFORT of actually deciding. It's hard work.

So people do indeed now have increased ability to contribute to important decisions, but most would rather watch TV.

This thread is turning too much into a Philosophical dabate of the pro and cons of what different type of government see as good or wrong. Lets go back to discussing about episode 10.

To me, it still looks like the discussion is in line with the themes of the show and especially the motives of No. I revealed in this episode and the various other Selecao so far... the whole thing with Noblesse Oblige (i.e. the responsibility of a few to save the country) vs. every individual citizen shouldering the responsibility, NEETs and one's duty to society, the morality of sacrificing a few for the (possible?) good of many, etc. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drobertbaker

Well Raiga has managed to stir the pot, hasn't she?

I think it was more fish eric's post (which is what I replied to), but it does seem like the discussion has picked up. Although... I'm a guy.

In fact, we do this all the time. We just don't like to think about it.

I'd argue that it isn't in our power to do anything about it, because it isn't in the power of regular people to do most things. The system is especially geared towards concentrating power in a small percentage of the population.

__________________

Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.

Secondly, my point was that writers such as Rosseau espoused ideals outlined in works like the Social Conract that people are better off surrendering their rights to the higher governing bodies. His view of the democratic system was that people's right to political activity ends when they vote and leave everything in the hands of those they have brought to power.

Quote:

I agree with you on some points, but would have to heartily disagree that the current situation is a result of Western philosophy and the Industrial Revolution. If anything, the ideas that can from Enlightenment thinkers actually encouraged people to have a greater hand in the government and policies of their nations. Hence all the revolutions of the time tending toward the democratic way of government and away from absolute rule by one or a few. And I've seen the IR catch a lot of flack, but in the days of feudalism people had no time to govern themselves because they were too busy trying to eke out a living from the soil. The IR gave more people time to consider their own rights and also managed to shift much of their former misery to other places of the world.

Yes while it was no doubt that the political upheavals of the last 300 years have brought the ideas that people must choose their own leaders, the problem again is that many societies still assume that political responsibility ends with making their choice of leaders. Sure enough you choose who you want to lead the nation but at the same time you wash off your responsibilities for the betterment of your nation and drop them off with your elected leaders assuming they'll do what is "right."

The problem with the IR is that it's made life so much easier for people that they've gotten so accustomed to their comfortable lifestyle to even consider any changes to the status quo. The rationale is that, if my life kicks ass, why should I want things to change?

I think the movie will be a major action epic, filled with thrills and suspense.

I think it will resolve the cliff-hanger left at the end of the last episode and also solve the first and last mystery: Why was he naked in front of the White House?

I think IX will sacrifice himself to save Japan from the missiles while Saki desperately tries to lead the Eden gang in helping him and vainly trying to save him. (She convinces them that he's a good guy next episode.)

I want to see the army of naked NEETS charging down the street trying to kill him and Saki bravely jumping in front of them, convincing them too that he's the good guy, while Micchon hacks the giant Q's Eye display in Shibuya to show them the cellphone records, and then them all tearing off after the bad guys to save him, destroying everything in their path.

At the end, they will all look up at the sky and Saki's voiceover will poetically deliver his elegy, saying what a strange and wonderful guy he was. Oosugi will put his arm around her, comforting her, and will slowly walk her off into their new future that IX (whoever he really was) made possible.

So... changing the topic completely... what's everyone's thoughts and expectations for the upcoming final episode? Will the story continue in the movie, will the movie be a summary, or a mini-sequel?

I'm expecting a major cliffhanger. I mean there are far too many questions still left to answer and the final episode is just not enough to address all of them.

Stuff like:
What's with The NEETs; the new missiles; Oohsugi and CO; Saki-Akira; the identity of #12; the death of #10; the meaning of "betrayal" against Akira; Ato Saizo's current state; The Juiz lady; WTH is that Society Computer Pantsu was working on; Where did Diana vanish... And many many more.
I don't wanna be pessimistic, but I eat my hat if the final episode is going to cover most of those questions.

TV ratings are in, and this episode jumped up to a 4.4% rating (from 3.2% last week), putting it in 11th place among all anime, and in first place by far among late-night anime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuroSaki_Ichi

Kk there is still something I don't get about Saki crying and saying she betrayed Akira. How is thinking that Careless Monday was a good thing betryaing Akira? Cause Akira was trying to stop it?

Yes. He went to a heck of a lot of trouble to save the people who would have been killed by the missiles. But at the time, she was looking for excitement in her life and couldn't help feeling a bit disappointed that the missiles seemed to have so little effect (she reveals this in ep2, as Jan-Poo said). Now she realizes she was hoping for what Akira's enemies were hoping for, and quite naturally feels guilty, not just toward him but in general.

When I first saw those trucks, I thought they were carrying missiles, but that seems unlikely: the missiles are elsewhere. I guess they were carrying Juiz, but I don't get why they couldn't just transfer data, and I don't understand how they could spirit such a big installation away without #1, who is looking right into the holes, realizing it had been done. We'll see if a reasonable explanation comes up in what will likely be a packed ep11 tomorrow.

I am very sympathetic with Director Kamiyama's points about work in Japan, as represented by Saki's feelings. Not many cultures have a special name for death by overwork. The Japanese work ethic is wonderful, but the way it makes them disposable victims of their companies is not. #1 wants to improve Japan by going back to the time when they worked hardest. What I think Kamiyama wants, on the other hand, is a Japan that is less run by its big corporations, in which workers are freer and less exploited, and in which non-conformists are not so shunned.

I don't think this is a problem of capitalism. I think a socialist Japan would be just as conformist, and the organization would exploit and oppress its members as companies do their workers now. I think what's required is a cultural revolution -- and we all know the dangers involved in that, lol.